100 landmark cases on Constitution

Case-Laws (Constitutional Law):

Name of the case Ratio of the case
1. Bijoe Emmanuel v State of Kerela The Court held that the right of free speech and expression also
1986 includes the right to remain silent and that only standing for the
national anthem showed proper respect.
2. Rajbala v State of Haryana 2015 The constitutionality of the Haryana Panchayati Raj
(Amendment) Act 2015 was upheld. The Act disbarred persons
3. K. Veeraswami v Union of India 1991 in Haryana from the right to contest panchayat elections on the
basis of certain restrictions like educational qualifications,
4. Delhi Judicial Service Association v/s arrears clause, etc.
State of Gujarat 1991 No FIR against a HC/SC judge unless President consults CJI and
5. S.P. Gupta v UOI (First Judges case) CJI allows it
1981 Guidelines against arrest of a judicial officer; permission of
6. Supreme Court Advocates on Record v District Judge or HC judge required
UOI (Second Judges case) 1993 Consultation under A.124 does not mean concurrence

7. In Re Presidential Reference 1998 Consultation under A.124 does not mean concurrence;
(Third Judges case) Collegium system evolved (1 + 2 = CJI + Two senior-most
8. Supreme Court Advocates on Record v judges)
UOI (Fourth Judges case) 2015 Collegium means– CJI + 4 senior-most judges

9. Naresh Mirajkar v State of Primacy of the CJI in judicial appointments upheld. National
Maharashtra 1966 Appointments Judicial Commission Act struck down as
10. Vishaka v State of Rajasthan 1997 unconstitutional.
99th Amendment to the Constitution struck down.
11. Sahara v SEBI 2012 Judiciary a State while performing administrative functions; not
while performing judicial functions
Guidelines pertaining to sexual harassment of women at
workplace
(2013 Sexual Harassment at Workplace Act codifies these
guidelines )
Doctrine of postponement; Postponing media publications to
ensure fair trail

12. Sharaya Bano v Union of India 2017 Triple Talaq unconstitutional
13. NALSA v Union of India 2014 Transgenders as third gender; to be given govt jobs under OBC
category
14. Shankari Prasad v Union of India Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights; Law under Article
1951 13 does not include a constitutional amendment
15. Sajjan Singh v State of Rajasthan Question posed - can Parliament amend the basic structure?
1964
16. Golak Nath v State of Punjab 1967 Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights;
Under Article 13(2), law includes a constitutional amendment
Doctrine of prospective overruling laid down

17. Keshvananda Bharti v State of Kerela Diluted by 24th Amendment 1971; Law does not include
1973 constitutional amendment as per Article 13(4) and Article
368(3)inserted by 24th Amendment, 1971
18. Minerva Mills v UOI 1980 Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights; cannot amend the
basic structure;
19. Ajay Hasia v Khalid Mujib 1980 Part of Article 31C which barred judicial review struck down
20. RD Shetty v International Airport Articles 368(4) & 368(5) struck down;
Authority 1980 Part of Article 31C struck down which gave primacy to all
21. AK Gopalan v State of Madras 1950 Directive Principles over Fundamental Rights ;
Harmony between DPSP’s and FR’s emphasized
22. Maneka Gandhi v UOI 1978 Test for determining ‘other authority’ under Article 12

23. Attorney General of India v Lachma Procedure established by law under A. 21 does not mean due
Devi 1985 process of law
24. K. Puttuswamy v UOI 2017 Procedure established by law under A. 21 means due process of
25. Balaji Raghavan v UOI 1995 law;
Right to go abroad – a facet of A.21
Public hanging is violative of Article 21

Right to privacy a facet of A.21
National awards such as Bharat Ratna, Padma Vibhushan,

26. State of West Bengal v Anwar Ali Padma Bhushan and Padma Shri (hereinafter called "The
Sarkar 1951 National Awards") are "Titles" within the meaning of Article
27. M.R. Balaji v State of Mysore 1962 18(1) of the Constitution of India
28. Indira Sawhney v Union of India There must be a nexus between the classification and the object
1993 of the Act which makes the classification
A special provision of reservation should be less than 50%.
29. Ajit Singh v State of Punjab 1999 Caste can be one of the criteria with other criteria such as place
of habitation, poverty, etc. to determine backwardness but caste
30. M. Nagraj v Union of India 2006 cannot be the sole factor
Reservations in promotion not permissible; diluted by Article
16(4A) via 77th Amendment
Creamy layer test not applicable to SC/ST’s
Reservation beyond 50% not permissible
Caste is a predominant test for assessing backwardness
Carry-forward rule for vacancies not permissible. Diluted by
Article 16(4B) via 81st Amendment
Upheld 27% reservation for OBC’s in public offices
Getting reservation in promotion does not grant consequential
seniority for SC/ST candidates;
'Catch up rule’ was laid down under which senior general
candidates who were promoted after SC/ST candidates would
regain their seniority over SC/ST candidates promoted;
Diluted by addition of a clause “with consequential seniority” in
Article 16(4A) via 85th Amendment
Reservation in promotion can be allowed if three tests factors are
shown:
a) Demonstrate backwardness
b) Demonstrate inadequacy of representation
c) Overall efficiency of the administration should not get
compromised
Held per incuriam (in Jarnail Singg v Lachmi Narain Gupta) to
the extent that it asks for demonstrating backwardness for
SC/ST’s as it goes against Indira Sawhney finding that there

31. Jarnail Singg v Lachmi Narain Gupta need not be shown any data for backwardness for SC/ST’s
2018 Holds M Nagraj per incuriam to the extent it asks for data to
32. Ashok Thakur v Union of India 2008 demonstrate backwardness of SC/ST’s
"Caste" is often used interchangeably with “class” and can be
33. State of Madras v Champakam called as the basic unit in social stratification. Creamy layer
Dorairajan 1951 principle cannot be applied to STs and SCs, as they are a
separate backward class by themselves.
34. Mohini Jain v State of Karnataka The question was restricted to whether Article 15(5), insofar as it
1992 applied to State institutions, violated the basic structure. That
part of Article 15(5) which referred to private, unaided
35. Unni Krishnan J.P. v. State of Andhra educational institutions was excluded from the scope of the
Pradesh 1993 enquiry. Court upheld the application of the provision to State
institutions.
Upheld 27% quota for OBC’s in educational institutions
Admission to medical and engineering colleges in Madras in a
proportion, based upon caste and religion, were challenged.
Court rejected the argument that A.46 could be used to provide
reservations since Directive Principles could not go against
Fundamental Rights of citizens.
Diluted by addition of Article 15(4) via the 1st Amendment
1951.
There is a fundamental right to education at all levels (primary,
secondary and higher) and that the state was under a
constitutional mandate to provide educational institutions at all
those levels.
The Court held that if government seats are filled by charging X
amount, it is the state’s responsibility to ensure that all other
institutions that are set up with government permission and have
obtained recognition from the government, also charge the same
amount as fees.
Reconsidered Mohini Jain. Held that the right to education only
extends to children up to the age of 14 years. Private institutions
had a right under Article 19(1)(g) that entitled them to complete

36. TMA Pai v State of Karnataka 2002 autonomy. Profit making was essential for them to flourish.
However, laid down certain restrictions/conditions with respect
37. Islamic Academy of Education v. to fees charged by private educational institutions. These
State of Karnataka 2003 conditions included the fees to be charged and the seat-sharing
38. P.A Inamdar v State of Maharashtra ratio between the government and private institutions.
Setting up of an educational institution would be an “occupation”
under Article 19(1)(g). The scheme framed by Unni Krishnan
was illegal and unconstitutional. Overruled Unni Krishnan to that
extent.
State cannot regulate the admission policies of unaided
educational institutions run by minorities. However, some rules
can be prescribed to maintain academic standards. Minority
institutions will have to admit to a reasonable extent non-
minority students in their institutions.
Held that the state can provide reservation in favour of
financially or socially backward sections of society. In order to
ensure transparency in admission and fee structure, the Court
resorted to the setting up of committees to give effect to the
judgment in TMA Pai.
The bench was set up to clarify
a) the ratio of TMA Pai (11 judge bench verdict)
b) to examine the correctness of Islamic Academy Case

Court held that setting up of committees to fix fee structure,
seats, etc. in private educational institutions ran contrary to the
judgment in TMA Pai. Hence overruled Islamic Academy to that
extent.
State can’t impose its reservation policy on minority and non-
minority unaided private colleges, including professional
colleges.

Incorporation of Article 15(5) via the 93rd Amendment diluted
the ratio of PA Inamdar and TMA Pai. State could now provide
‘by law’ reservations in state as well private (aided or unaided)

39. L. Chandra Kumar v UOI educational institutions. However, minority educational
40. Waman Rao v Union of India 1981 institutions were left out.
41. I.R Coelho v State of Tamil Nadu Judicial review is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
2007 Held 323A Clause 2(d) and 323B Clause 3(d) struck down as it
affected powers of High Court of judicial review
42. P Rathinam v UOI 1994 All laws put under the 9th Schedule of the Constitution before
the date of Kesavananda Bharti’s decision i.e. April 24th, 1973
43. Gian Kaur v State of Punjab 1996 will be immune from judicial review. All laws put under the 9th
Schedule after Keshvananda Bharti will be open to challenge on
the ground of violation of basic structure doctrine.
Twofold test laid down to determine the validity of any law put
under the 9th Schedule:
a) Whether the law violates Fundamental Rights?
b) Whether the violation also results in violation of the basic
structure of the Constitution?
If yes, the law will be struck down.
Held some fundamental rights to be part of the basic structure of
the Constitution but stopped short of holding all fundamental
rights to be part of the basic structure.
S. 309 of IPC is a a cruel and irrational provision, and it may
result in punishing a person again (doubly) who has suffered
agony and would also be suffering ignominy because of his
failure to commit suicide. Consequently, it was held that the
section was violative of Article 21, hence unconstitutional.
However, the bench did not favour euthanasia.
"Right to life" under Article 21 is inherently inconsistent with the
"right to die" as is "death" with "life". In furtherance, the right to
life, which includes right to live with human dignity, would
mean the existence of such a right up to the natural end of life. It
may further include "death with dignity" but such existence
should not be confused with unnatural extinction of life
curtailing natural span of life.
Overruled P. Rathinam v UOI.

44. Aruna Shanbaug v UOI 2011 The SC issued a set of broad guidelines legalizing passive
euthanasia in India. It held that the decision to withdraw
45. Common Cause v UOI 2018 treatment, nutrition, or the decision to discontinue life support
must be taken by parents, spouse, or other close relatives, or in
46. Kihoto Hollohan v Zachillu 1992 the absence of them, by a "next friend". This decision requires
47. Indira Nehru Gandhi v Raj Narain approval from the concerned High Court.
1975 Right to die with dignity is a fundamental right. Passive
48. People’s Union for Democratic Rights euthanasia is permissible, not active euthanasia. The difference
v UOI 1982 between ‘active’ and passive’ euthanasia is that in active
49. Santosh Kumar v Secretary, Ministry euthanasia something is done to end the patient’s life while in
of HRD 1995 passive euthanasia, something is not done that would have
preserved the patient’s life.
Court also upheld the validity of a living will. Living will is a
written document that allows a patient to give explicit
instructions in advance about the medical treatment to be
administered when he or she is terminally ill or no longer able to
express informed consent. It includes authorizing their families
to switch off life support in case a medical board declared that
they were beyond medical help.
(Mental Healthcare Act under S. 115 decriminalizes suicide)
Held para 7 of the 10th Schedule (inserted by 52nd Amendment
1985) of the Constitution as ultra vires as it excluded judicial
review.
Held 39th Amendment (A.329A) as unconstitutional and
violative of basic structure.
Where a person provides labour or service to another for
remuneration which is less than the minimum wage, the labour
or service provided by him clearly falls within the scope and
ambit of the words 'forced labour' under Article 23.
Teaching of Sanskrit alone as an elective subject in CBSE can in
no way be regarded as against secularism. Indeed, our
Constitution requires giving of fillip to Sanskrit because of what
has been stated in Article 351, in which while dealing with the

50. Rev. Stanislaus v State of M.P 1977 duty of the Union to promote the spread of Hindi it has been
provided that it would draw, whenever necessary or desirable,
51. Association for Democratic Reforms for its vocabulary, primarily on Sanskrit. Encouragement to
v. Union of India 2002 Sanskrit is also necessary because of it being one of the
52. Lok Prahari v UOI 2018 languages included in the Eighth Schedule.
The right to propagate religion under Article 25 does not include
53. Lily Thomas v UOI 2013 the right to convert by fraud or deceit or allurement and therefore
upheld the constitutional validity of the laws enacted by Madhya
54. Abhiram Singh v C.D. Commachen Pradesh and Orissa legislatures prohibiting conversion by force,
2017 fraud or allurement.
Court mandated the disclosure of information relating to criminal
antecedents, educational qualification, and personal assets of a
candidate contesting elections.
Centre directed to amend the rules as well as the disclosure form
filed by candidates along with their nomination papers, to
include the sources of their income, and those of their spouses
and dependants and disclosure of government contracts where
candidates or their associates have direct or indirect interests.
S. 8(4) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 was
prospectively (i.e. from the date of the decision) struck down as
unconstitutional being beyond the legislative competence of the
Parliament. Section 8(4) provided that if a MP or a MLA has
been convicted of a criminal offence, such MP or MLA can
continue to remain, and discharge his or her duties as, a member
of the House, if within three months of the conviction, he or she
has filed an appeal or a revision against such conviction. This
protection is no more available to MP’s and MLA’s and thus on
conviction they lose their seat.
Section 123 (3) of the Act prohibits any candidate, his agent, or
any person consented by such candidate or his agent, from
soliciting votes, or discouraging voters against voting for a rival
candidate, on grounds of religion, race, caste, community or
language, by declaring such conduct as a ‘corrupt practice’. The

55. Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v UOI court has read this provision to disallow any reference to the
2018 religion, race, caste, community or language, of the candidate, or
of his rivals, or of the voters to secure votes, or prejudice the
56. Public Interest Foundation v UOI electorate against a rival in an election.
2018 MP's or MLA's cannot be barred from practising in courts.
Legislators cannot be styled or characterized as full-time salaried
57. Sarla Mudgal v UOI 1995 employees for there is no relationship of employer and
58. In Re Keshav Singh 1965 employee.
(Bar Council of India Rules prohibit an advocate from being a
59. P.V Narsimha Rao v State 1998 full time salaried employee of any person, government,
firm,corporation or concern, so long as he continues to practice.)
Politicians cannot be barred from contesting elections on framing
of charges.
Guidelines issued to prevent criminalisation of politics: First,
while filing their nominations, the candidates must declare if
there are pending criminal cases against them in courts. Second,
political parties are also responsible for putting up details of
criminal cases filed against their candidates on their websites.
Third, Parliament must legislate on the matter to ensure that
candidates with criminal antecedents do not enter public life or
become lawmakers.
Emphasized on the need for a Uniform Civil Code
It could not be disputed that in the matters of privileges, the
House was the sole and exclusive Judge provided such privilege
could be found in Article 194(3). The question whether a
privilege as claimed by the House was provided by Article
194(3) or not, was a matter for the Court to decide. The nature
and scope of Article 194(3), was thus, to be determined by the
Court.
The Court also observed that such privileges were necessarily
subject to Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution.
The court held that those who took bribe but did not vote will be
liable for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act as

60. Swapnil Tripathi v Supreme Court of they were not protected or entitled to the immunity under A.
India 2018 105(2) of the Constitution, whereas those who voted will be
61. Shreya Singhal v UOI 2015 protected even though they had taken bribes.
62. Joseph Shine v UOI 2018 Supreme Court allowed live-streaming of court proceedings
63. K. Puttuswamy v UOI 2018
SC struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act,
64. Indian Young Lawyers Association v 2000, relating to restrictions on online speech, on grounds of
State of Kerela 2018 violating the freedom of speech guaranteed under Article
19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.
65. Navtej Johar v UOI Section 497 (adultery) of the Indian Penal Code is a codified rule
of patriarchy. The Bench held Section 198 (2) of the CrPC,
which gives the husband the exclusive right to prosecute his
wife’s lover, manifestly arbitrary.
Upheld Aadhaar as a reasonable restriction on individual
privacy. Upholding the passage of the Aadhaar Act as a Money
Bill the majority opinion upheld the PAN-Aadhaar linkage, but
declared linking Aadhaar with bank accounts and mobile SIM
cards unconstitutional. The card was not necessary for children
aged between six and 14 under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan as
right to education was a fundamental right. Statutory bodies like
CBSE and UGC cannot ask students to produce their Aadhaar
cards for examinations like NEET and JEE. Section 57 of the
Aadhar Act was struck down as it was used by the government to
compel private companies to demand Aadhaar verification for
services.
Exclusion of women from the temple of Lord Ayappa was a
discriminatory practice which violates the freedom of religion of
women devotees. Devotees of Lord Ayyappa do not constitute a
separate religious denomination and the prohibition on women is
not an essential part of Hindu religion. Also exclusion based on
the notion of impurity (menstruation) is a form of untouchability.
S. 377 IPC is irrational, indefensible and arbitrary. The sexual
orientation of each individual in the society must be protected on

66. Olga Tellis v Bombay Municipal an even platform, for the right to privacy and the protection of
Corporation 1985 sexual orientation lies at the core of the fundamental rights
67. John Vallotam v UOI 1997 guaranteed by Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution. Respect
for individual choice is the very essence of liberty under law.
68. D.C Wadhwa v State of Bihar 1987 Section 377 IPC assumes the characteristic of unreasonableness,
for it becomes a weapon in the hands of the majority to seclude,
69. Krishna Kumar Singh vs. State of exploit and harass the LGBT community
Bihar 2017 Right to livelihood is a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution

70. A.K Roy v UOI 1982 Court declared S.118 of the Indian Succession Act
unconstitutional as violating of Article 14 of the Constitution. It
restricted the right of a Christian having a nephew or niece or
any other relative as regards his power to bequeath his property
for religious or charitable purposes.
The power to make an ordinance is to meet an extraordinary
situation and it should not be made to meet political ends of an
individual. Re-promulgation from time to time is a subversion of
the democratic process and a fraud on the Constitution. If
Ordinance making was made a usual practice, creating an
‘Ordinance raj’ the courts could strike down re-promulgated
Ordinances.
The Court held that the requirement of placing the ordinance
before the Legislature is mandatory. re-promulgation of
ordinances is a fraud on the Constitution and a subversion of
democratic legislative processes. The court also held that the
satisfaction of the President under Article 123 and of the
Governor under Article 213 while issuing ordinances is not
immune from judicial review.
President’s Ordinance making power is not beyond the scope of
judicial review however the need to exercise judicial review over
the President’s decision arises only when there were substantial
grounds to challenge the decision, and not at “every casual and
passing challenge”.

71. ADM Jabalpur v Shivkant Shukla The issue was whether an order issued by the President under
1976 Article 359(1) of the Constitution suspends the right of every
72. B.P Singhal v UOI 2010 person to move any Court for the enforcement of the right to
personal liberty under Article 21 upon being detained under a
73. Society for Un-aided Private Schools law providing for. The court answered in the affirmative.
of Rajasthan v. Union of India 2012 Overruled in K Puttuswamy v UOI.
The President, in effect the central government, has the power to
remove a Governor at any time without giving him or her any
reason, and without granting an opportunity to be heard.
However, this power cannot be exercised in an arbitrary,
capricious or unreasonable manner. The power of removing
Governors should only be exercised in rare and exceptional
circumstances for valid and compelling reasons. The mere reason
that a Governor is at variance with the policies and ideologies of
the central government, or that the central government has lost
confidence in him or her, is not sufficient to remove a Governor.
Thus, a change in central government cannot be a ground for
removal of Governors, or to appoint more favourable persons to
this post. A decision to remove a Governor can be challenged in
a court of law.
Every citizen has a right to establish and administer schools
under Article 19(1)(g) so long as the activity remains charitable.
Such an activity undertaken by private schools supplements the
primary obligation of the State. The State can regulate by law the
activities of private schools, including admission, by imposing
reasonable restrictions in the public interest under Article 19(6)
of the Constitution. The quota obligation imposed on private
unaided non-minority schools is in the public interest and is a
reasonable restriction for the purposes of Article 19(6).
Therefore, the Right to Education Act shall apply to private
unaided non-minority schools. Regarding unaided minority
schools, Article 29(1) of the Constitution protects the right of
minorities to conserve their language, script or culture, and
Article 30(1) protects their right to establish and administer

74. Pramati Educational & Cultural Trust schools of their choice. Imposing a quota on such schools would
v UOI 2014 result in changing their character and would therefore violate
these minority rights. Therefore, the RTE Act shall not apply to
75. S.R Bommai v UOI 1994 unaided minority schools. Regarding government-aided minority
schools, Article 29(2) of the Constitution protects every citizen’s
76. Ismail Faruqui v UOI 1995 right of admission into a State-aided school. Accordingly, the
RTE Act shall apply to aided minority schools.
Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of
India & Anr. insofar as it holds that the 2009 Act is applicable to
aided minority schools is overruled. Constitution (93rd
Amendment) Act, 2005 inserting clause (5) of Article 15 of the
Constitution and the Constitution (86th Amendment) Act, 2002
inserting Article 21A of the Constitution do not alter the basic
structure or framework of the Constitution and are
constitutionally valid. RTE Act is not ultra vires Article 19(1)(g)
of the Constitution.
The SC laid down certain guidelines so as to prevent the misuse
of A356 of the constitution. Based on the report of the Sarkaria
Commission on Centre–state Relations(1988), the Supreme
Court enlisted the situations where the exercise of power under
Article 356 could be proper or improper. lso held that Secularism
is one of the basic features of the Constitution. Secularism is a
positive concept of equal treatment of all religions. Any State
government which pursues nonsecular policies or nonsecular
course of action acts contrary to the constitutional mandate and
renders itself amenable to action under Article 356.
The power of acquisition is the sovereign or prerogative power
of the State to acquire property. Such power exists independent
of Article 300A of the Constitution or the earlier Article 31 of
the Constitution which merely indicate the limitations on the
power of acquisition by the State. Such acquisition per se does
not violate Articles 25 or 26 of the Constitution. What is
protected under Articles 25 and 26 is a religious practice which
forms an essential and integral part of religion. A practice may

be a religious practice but not an essential part of religious

practice. While offer of prayer or worship is a religious practice,

its offering at every location where such prayers can be offered

would not be an essential or integral part of such religious

practice unless the place has a particular significance for that

religion so as to form an essential or integral part thereof.

77. S.P. Mittal v UOI 1983 The words "religious denomination" in Article 26 of the

Constitution must take their colour from the word 'religion' and

if this be so, the expression religious denomination" must also

satisfy three conditions:

(i) It must be a collection of individuals who has a system of

beliefs or doctrine which they regard as conducive to their

spiritual well-being, that is, a common faith;

(ii) Common organisation: and

(iii)Designation by a distinctive name.

78. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious The Court, laid down the essential practice test. It observed what

Endowments, Madras v. Shri constitutes an essential part of a religion will be ascertained with

Lakshmindar Thirtha Swamiyar of Shri reference to the tenets and doctrines of that religion itself.

Shirur Mutt 1954 The essential religious practise test means that any religious

practise which forms the basis or is so essential to that religion

that it will fall within the protection of Article 25 and 26 should

be protected as such. Any other activity not an essential practice

does not require protection and will be covered in exceptions to

the right to religion. There are certain exceptions which are given

in the Constitution itself like economic, political, and financial or

other secular activity which may be associated with religious

practice.

79. Selvi v State of Karnataka 2010 Court declared that three prominent police interrogation

techniques narco-analysis, the lie-detector test, and brain-
mapping - violated an accused person’s right against self-

incrimination under Article 20(3), and her right to life and

personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. A forcible

administration of the above tests would be an unjustified

intrusion into mental privacy and could lead to further stigma for

the victim.

80. M.C. Mehta v UOI 1986 Laid down the concept of Public Liability and Absolute

Liability.

81. Rural Litigation and Entitlement Laid down the concept of sustainable development.

Kendra, Dehradun v State of Uttar

Pradesh 1987

82. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Laid down Polluter Pays principle.

Action v Union of India 1999

83. Animal Welfare Board of India v A. Court prohibited Jallikattu and other animal races and fights.

Nagaraj 2014 Held that animal fights incited by humans are illegal, even those

carried out under the guise of tradition and culture.

84. Subhash Kumar vs. State of Bihar Right to life includes the right of enjoyment of pollution free

1991 water and air for full enjoyment of life.

85. D.K Basu v State of West Bengal Court laid down specific guidelines required to be followed by

1997 police while making arrests

86. Sheela Barse vs. State of Maharashtra Court laid down guidelines conferring protection to women

1983 prisoners in police lock ups

87. Prem Chand Garg v. Excise The court held that an order which this Court can make in order

Commissioner, U.P. Allahabad 1963 to do complete justice under Article 142 between the parties,

must not only be consistent with the fundamental rights

guaranteed by the Constitution, but it cannot even be inconsistent

with the substantive provisions of the relevant statutory laws.

88. Union Carbide Corpn. v. Union of The court held that prohibitions or limitations or provisions

India 1991 contained in ordinary law cannot, ipso facto, act as prohibitions

or limitations on the constitutional powers under Article 142

89. Supreme Court Bar Assn. v. Union of Court observed that powers under Article 142 cannot, in any

India 1998 way, be controlled by any statutory provisions but at the same

time these powers are not meant to be exercised when their

exercise may come directly in conflict with what has been

expressly provided for in a statute dealing expressly with the

subject. It was said that the said article could not be used to

supplant the existing law, but only to supplement the law.

90. Subhash Mahajan v State of Court laid down guidelines to prevent abuse of the Scheduled

Maharashtra 2018 Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
91. Govt. of NCT Delhi v UOI 2018 1989 (SC/ST Act). Held no absolute bar on anticipatory bail,
arrest to be made after a preliminary inquiry, public servant
cannot be arrested without prior sanction.
Diluted by amendments made to the Act in 2018.
The Court held that Lieutenant Governor of NCT of Delhi is
bound by the aid and advice of the elected Government of Delhi
except in matters of land, police and public order. While holding
so, the Court has observed that in a democracy, real power must
vest in the elected representatives and Lt. Governor cannot
interfere in every decision of the Delhi Government. The words
“any matter” employed in the proviso to clause (4) of Article
239AA cannot be inferred to mean “every matter”.

92. Maru Ram v Union of India 1980 Court held that the power under Article 72 is to be exercised on
93. Kehar Singh v Union of India 1989 the advice of the Central Government and not by the President
94. Epru Sudhakar v Govt of A.P. 2006 on his own, and that the advice of the Government binds the
head of the Republic.
95. Triveniben v State of Gujarat 1989 The court laid down that the order of the President cannot be
subjected to judicial review on its merits except within the strict
limitations defined in Maru Ram.
It is a well-set principle that a limited judicial review of exercise
of clemency powers is available to the Supreme Court and High
Courts. Granting of clemency by the President or Governor can
be challenged on the following grounds:
The order has been passed without application of mind.
The order is mala fide.
The order has been passed on extraneous or wholly irrelevant
considerations.
Relevant material has been kept out of consideration.
The order suffers from arbitrariness
n undue long delay in execution of the sentence would entitle the
convict to approach the Supreme Court under Article 32 or the

96. Shatrughan Chauhan v UOI 2014 High Court under Article 226 and get his sentence commuted.
The court observed that an inordinate and inexplicable delay in
97. Union of India v. Tulshiram Patel execution would preclude carrying out the sentence even in cases
1985 where the convict in question had committed an offence of
98. Parshottam Lal Dhingra v. Union of terrorism. Overruled Devender Singh Bhullar v. State of NCT
India 1957 Delhi 2013 which had ruled that a delay in disposing of a mercy
petition was, by itself, insufficient ground for commuting the
99. Union of India v. Balbir Singh 1998 sentence of those convicted to death under anti-terrorism
statutes.
The Court held that the dismissal, removal or reduction in rank
of a person convicted on criminal charges is in public interest,
and therefore not violative of Art. 311(2) or Article 14 of the
Constitution
Article 311 is available only when ‘dismissal, removal, reduction
in rank is by way of punishment.’ So it is difficult to determine
as to when an order of termination of service or reduction in rank
amounts to punishment. The Supreme Court laid down 2 tests to
determine when termination is by way of punishment –
Whether the servant had a right to hold the post or the rank?
Whether he has been visited with evil consequences?
If a government servant had a right to hold the post or rank under
the terms of any contract of service, or under any rule, governing
the service, then the termination of his service or reduction in
rank amounts to a punishment and he will be entitled to
protection under Article 311. Articles 310 and 311 apply to
Government servants, whether permanent, temporary, officiating
or on probation. The procedure laid down in Article 311 is
intended to assure, first, a measure of tenure to government
servants, who are covered by the Article and secondly to provide
certain safeguards against arbitrary dismissal or removal of a
government servant or reduction to a lower rank.
The Supreme Court held that the Court can examine the
circumstances on which the satisfaction of the president or

Governor is taken under proviso to Article 311(2). If the Court
finds that the circumstances have no bearing whatsoever on the
security of State, the Court can hold that satisfaction of the
President or the Governor which is required for passing such an
order has been vitiated by wholly extraneous or irrelevant
considerations.
100. Campaign for Judicial Chief Justice is the master of the roster. Followed the ratio of
Accountability and Reforms v. Union of State of Rajasthan v.Prakash Chand (1998).
India 2017